Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Dew


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  17:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Bill Dew

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is actually one of several articles on defeated candidates for the US house in Utah we should delete. I have not been keeping close track as I come across them, and each case might have mitigating circumstances. However here over half the sources are primary sources. The secondary coverage all comes from papers for which Dew's district is part of their circulation area, and so mention of Dew is totally expected from them. No standard higher than all major party candidates for US congress are notable would make Dew notable, and that standard has been rejected. He totally fails the notability guidelines for politicians and does not meet any other guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete does not pass WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  talk  02:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 04:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 04:53, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - while there are plenty of mentions of Bill in my WP:BEFORE check that aren't results/polls, a trend of either mentions in more notable media or rampant bias in others, rather undermines any attempt to get in under WP:GNG. WP:POLITICAN doesn't give him an automatic in, but there's enough about him that it might not be impossible to find something. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsuccessful election candidates don't get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se — he has to win the election, not just run in it, to be deemed notable per WP:NPOL. The only other way to qualify him for an article is to demonstrate and reliably source that he had preexisting notability for some other reason besides the candidacy itself, but this article doesn't even try to do that, and instead is staking his notability and his sourcing entirely onto the candidacy alone. I can't find any appreciable evidence of strong sourcing on a Google News search, either — so no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can source the article well enough to demonstrate that he actually has some other notability claim that this article is completely missing for some reason, but nothing in this version is notable enough to make him keepable as it stands. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.